<p>mannix - I see you have a kid at NEU and seem to have a vested interest in an RA friend of your kid who was fired.</p>
<p>As a parent of a resident at NEU, what have you done to seek answers from the school directly? I am assuming he is a resident which means it impacts you as a parent.</p>
<p>Personally, if I had a kid, I would be more interested about where the security might be impacted over why an RA is fired but that’s just me.</p>
<p>So, I’m going to say that I think it’s great that there’s an appeal process for this. I would also hope that there’s some kind of a log book or incident reporting system that would allow an RA to record when an even that’s part of their duties prevents them from completing other parts of their duties. For example, “I was walking my first round of the evening, and came across a suicidal student. I called 911, notified my RD (so they could rearrange assignments to cover my buildings), and rode the ambulance with the student. When I returned at 3 a.m. I walked a quick round (for a total of 1.5 rounds) and went to sleep.” This is how it works for security officers, classroom teachers, and other jobs where presence appropriate.</p>
<p>If NEU doesn’t have such a system, then I think they need to take that into account and, up to a reasonable point, and take the RA’s word for what they were doing. However, if the RA’s found that they were consistently unable to do their job, then it was their responsibility to reach out to admin and look for a solution before it created a safety problem.</p>
<p>I am not entirely sure what your objection to the street crossing is. Do you feel that RA’s aren’t old enough to cross streets late at night? Where the RA’s not notified that this would be an expectation, or was the position changed after contracts were signed?</p>
<p>texaspg: My son’s friend has been hoping that this resolves with the truth coming out, and a fair and fully investigated overview of the whole thing. He has respect for the university and is trying to show respect for the administration by letting the appeals process play out. So that is why I will not personally interfere. His residents are so upset for him and many have offered to have their parents contact the school to demand answers; he is a very upstanding kind of guy and has demurred, telling them that he believes in the university and is optimistic that the end result will be fair to him and the others.</p>
<p>" The Director of Res Life wants the RAS walking the round, across the street at 2 AM. Yes, the routes go across public streets at 2 AM."</p>
<p>Well, then I guess they were justified in not doing it. @@</p>
<p>Post 219 is on the money. </p>
<p>Really, this is a non issue. Kids didn’t do what they were supposed to. They got fired. This is not a travesty of justice.</p>
<p>mannix - I am asking a different question. </p>
<p>Is your son a resident? If so what security threats exist that forced the university to look into this that might pose a risk to your son? This is truly the only question you have a right to ask that might get you some real answers.</p>
<p>University has every right to fire anyone they choose and whether they reinstate this RA or not is mostly speculation at this point despite how well he might be liked.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m confused. Why would you personally interfere regardless, given that this is not even your child?
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree there were other alternatives. I’m not sure if those were considered and rejected because of the potential for legal action. I would have preferred substantial financial penalties for each missed round, but it’s not clear if that’s legal. It’s clearly legal to fire someone who doesn’t do their job. </p>
<p>Can you think of any other alternatives that would retain as much of the trained staff yet also scare those remaining staff into doing every aspect of the job that they are paid for without adding a significant administrative cost to NEU? </p>
<p>I care greatly about my employees who work hard and do what they are supposed to do. I do whatever I can to keep them happy, and they seem to be. For those that take advantage of me and slack on the job, not so much.</p>
<p>Classic, here’s a thought – NEU ResLife could have given a warning. As to the analogy with your employees, NEU didnt bother to figure out how many missed rounds. When a large portion of an employee group doesnt do part of the job, one has to wonder who is at fault. Was there poor communication as to what parts of job were critical (like maybe listening to troubled students more important than rounds).</p>
<p>If you use “not doing a small part of your job” as a pretext to fire a protected class of employees (and let most of employees who do the same stay on) it is not legal. </p>
<p>As to the concern about legal issues, it seems to me that NEU has far more liaibity if one of the RAs were attacked while out in public at 2 AM on rounds. Security guards are trained for danger. They ususally carry walkl-talkies, etc. Cell phones are not the same. The security guard can instantly reach the security office. The RA may be out of cell phone service. The security office likely monitors that guards finish their rounds. Obviously head of Reslife did not. He didnt care if any RAs got attacked while out by themselves at 2 AM.</p>
<p>nrdsb4 - I was answering a question posed from texaspg to why I would not just call the school and try to get some answers on my own. You’re right, i would have no reason to “interfere” (or even ask questions) unless my own tuition-paying child was somehow being harmed.</p>
<p>texas - my S lives off campus. I got involved because his friend was panicked, looking for a place to live, and my S wanted him to move into his apt. and sleep on the floor, but his roommates were worried that might violate their lease. </p>
<p>The reason i originally posted way back on the original threads was that I really did believe that half the RA staff was going to be homeless on 24-hour notice, because that’s what my son’s fired RA friend understood the situation to be when he was first terminated, and naturally I thought that was outrageous if that was the case. (The reddit at NEU blog illustrates that other students & RAs initially thought that was the case too). It’s true I should’ve checked more before posting, but i had this 24-hour thing going on in my brain and I couldn’t believe there weren’t others in the same situation. (I still am not sure that homelessness could not ultimately be the case for a couple of them who can’t afford the housing costs and have nowhere else to go yet).</p>
<p>btw, not all of them appealed; a couple accepted the terminations and already moved out to friend’s places. They ones who appealed thought that after the 3-day appeal requirement, the results of appeal would be issued within a day and they would have to find somewhere else to live immediately. But the appeal decisions have not been handed down, as far as I know.</p>
<p>classic rocker dad – you and I agree on a lot. I just disagree that the issues in this case are black and white as to who is a slacker and who is not, and the methods employed to determine that, and as to whether or not all the employees were treated fairly and equally.</p>
<p>great point kayf about where NEU liability really might have been the greatest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seriously? It seems obvious to me. </p>
<p>You get together whoever is hiring, training, and supervising RAs and tell them that it has come to your attention that many RAs are not completing their scheduled rounds. (Actually, I would assume that some of them at some level are involved in the investigation in the first place.) If you have completed your investigation without going off half-cocked, you will have found out who is not doing it, and might have some idea why. You might have ascertained that this has something to do with the dorm configuration. If you find that compliance is significantly better within self-contained dorm complexes, you might ask yourself whether it would be better to assign an RA to patrol only the dorm s/he lives in, and leave patrolling the city streets at 2AM to your trained and equipped security guards. If you find that compliance is bad all over, it is more likely a training and supervision issue.</p>
<p>In any case, with your staff, you decide how to handle it. I would venture to guess that this would involve a memo and meeting at which you announce any structural changes to the RA position you have decided on, and inform the RAs that anyone NOT fulfilling the obligation to do rounds, unless it is caused by a documented emergency such as an intervention with a troubled student, will be fired.</p>
<p>I think that the idea that 7 students should be randomly selected and fired when, according to what we hear so far, anyway, this non-compliance was pervasive, is simply ludicrous. I am astonished that people actually seem to think that–if this is indeed what was actually done, and I don’t think we really know-- it is fair or effective management.</p>
<p>“great point kayf about where NEU liability really might have been the greatest.”</p>
<p>There are professionals in the employ of NEU who are paid very big bucks to know, as best they can, where their liability is greatest, and I expect they know the answer.</p>
<p>You can read about them: <a href=“http://www.northeastern.edu/general-counsel/contact/index.html[/url]”>http://www.northeastern.edu/general-counsel/contact/index.html</a></p>
<p>I really think the RAs may have gotten off light. (But if there is legal action pending, they may not.)</p>
<p>Yes, mini we all realize that there are VERY well paid professionals at Northeastern. That’s part of why I shake my head at this. Schools raise tuition to pay for more overhead, and yet:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>“Professionals” think it OK to have student RAs on patrol, outside buildings at 2 AM, not caring if they get attacked while on patrol.</p></li>
<li><p>“Professionals” think it is a great idea not to issue warnings, but to fire SOME of the non-compliant students, and THEN figure out how many others are non-complaint.</p></li>
<li><p>ResLife has numerous layers of administrative people (RAs report to RDs who report to some other group, who report to the head of Reslife). Many people not doing work, but not supervising either.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I do not think Northeastern Business or Law Schools would recommend these processes. At least I hope not.</p>
<p>I think you are clueless about liability. But that’s okay: play on.</p>
<p>But let’s meet those people who are paid to know:</p>
<p>Ralph C. Martin, II is Senior Vice President and General Counsel for Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. Since 2011, he has served as the chief legal officer for the University, and has oversight of institutional master planning, compliance and risk management, city and public affairs, and institutional diversity. In his current capacity, Ralph serves on the 8 member Senior Leadership Team of Northeastern University, which directs the overall strategic direction of the University under the leadership of the President.</p>
<p>Before joining Northeastern, Ralph was the managing partner of the 275 lawyer Boston office of Bingham McCutchen, an 1100-lawyer international law firm. Ralph has more than 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer and state and federal prosecutor. He practiced in the areas of corporate investigations, white collar defense and general civil litigation. Ralph was also the managing principal of Bingham Consulting Group, a firm subsidiary business that advises clients challenged by the legal, public policy and other complexities of multistate investigations by Attorneys General.</p>
<p>Ralph has served on several Boards, including serving for two years as Chairman of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, the region’s leading business advocacy group.</p>
<p>Ralph is also the former Suffolk County district attorney, having served as the elected prosecutor for Boston, Chelsea, Revere and Winthrop from 1992–2002. During his nearly 10 years in office, he was credited with helping to oversee substantial changes in the way law enforcement collaborated with other agencies to make dramatic improvements in crime prevention and prosecution. </p>
<p>–
**
Vincent J. Lembo** is Vice President and Senior Counsel for Northeastern University. He also serves as Secretary to the Northeastern University Corporation and Board of Trustees.</p>
<p>Mr. Lembo came to Northeastern University in 1979, working in both the development office of the School of Law and the government relations office before assuming the position of University Counsel in 1982, a position he held for 28 years. He continued working as the University’s state lobbyist until 1987.</p>
<p>Mr. Lembo has been elected to the position of Secretary to the Northeastern University Corporation and the Board of Trustees annually since 1988. Prior to his election, he served as Assistant Secretary and Director of Trustee Services for four years.</p>
<p>In addition, Mr. Lembo has been the Administrator/Secretary for three presidential searches, 1988-89, 1995-96, and 2005-06. He also served as Chairman of President Richard M. Freeland’s inaugural committee in 1996.</p>
<p>From 1977 to 1978 Vice President Lembo served as Law Clerk to The Honorable John F. Doris of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. He then practiced law in Woonsocket, Rhode Island before coming back to Northeastern University.</p>
<p>Mr. Lembo is a magna cum laude graduate in political science from Northeastern University, Class of 1973. During that time he was elected President of the Northeastern University Student Government. He graduated from the Northeastern University School of Law in 1976, where he served as the Chief Teaching Assistant for Legal Writing in his third year.</p>
<p>–</p>
<p>Lisa A. Sinclair is Associate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel. She is a cum laude graduate of Mount Holyoke College and Boston College Law School. Ms. Sinclair joined the Office of General Counsel (then the Office of University Counsel) in 1998 as Senior Assistant University Counsel, becoming the Associate University Counsel in 2001. From 1998-1999, Ms. Sinclair also served as Acting Interim Dean and Director of the University’s Office of Affirmative Action and Diversity. In July, 2012, she was appointed Associate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel.</p>
<p>Ms. Sinclair has served as a steering committee member of the Boston Bar Association’s College and University Section; she is also a member of the Tax-Exempt Organizations and Employment Law Sections. Ms. Sinclair is a member of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, having been an invited presenter on various legal issues affecting higher education. She has also served as member of the faculty at Northeastern University, having taught Higher Education Law at the graduate level. Prior to joining the University, Ms. Sinclair was in private practice, at the same time serving as a Special Prosecutor for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office.</p>
<p>You’ll have to excuse me if I think I trust their opinions and actions a little more than yours. Play on.</p>
<p>Kayf,</p>
<p>You’ve now made two accusations that I don’t see supported in the article. Can you clarify two things for me?</p>
<p>1) You mentioned that the fired RA’s may be part of a “protected class”. Do you have evidence that the RAs who are fired are disproprtionately female, disabled, or members of a minority group, relative to NEU RAs as a whole?</p>
<p>2) You mention RAs “patrolling the streets” Do you have evidence that the RAs were asked to perform any duties at all outside of buildings? The article makes it sound like they had to be in different buildings but that all they had to do outside was move from one building to another.</p>
<p>Curious --</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I said IF they were part of a protected class. Got it, IF</p></li>
<li><p>No, I dont know that they patrolled – but they had to go outside late at night, by themselves. That is a clear risk, as OSHA has noted wrt retail establishments.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Mini, do you think that these Board members even knew about these practices?</p>
<p>{"I really think the RAs may have gotten off light. (But if there is legal action pending, they may not.) "}</p>
<p>mini - you really seem to know something about some horrible triggering incident. It’s a point you make throughout this entire thread. Is there something you know? Do you have inside knowledge of some sort?</p>
<p>Mini, do you think that these Board members even knew about these practices?’</p>
<p>These are NOT Board members - these are the General Counsel to the University. I am 99.9% sure they were consulted before any firings took place. I am 99.9% sure that they met with the Office of Risk Services, and specifically, the Director of Risk Management, before any firings took place. And likely briefed the office of the President as well.</p>
<p>I have no idea what the trigger was. It might not have been “horrible” at all, but an “inquiry” from a parent who felt that his/her son/daughter was placed in some kind of danger (real or imagined). Nor any idea when it took place (it could have been months ago.) But it was enough to move an experienced Risk Manager to approve an action which you seem to think was extreme.</p>
<p>As to them getting off light - the question is whether it will be part of their permanent employment record, and how it will affect future references they might otherwise expect from the University. Normally, being fired for cause does impact these.</p>
<p>Oh my, really? You think a General Counsel is consulted prior to every firing in an organization? Or even just this organization? Wow, no way.</p>
<p>And you are so faithful to a college administration that you are sure there had to be SOME triggering incident? It couldn’t be that a new risk manager coming on to the job might just be looking for a way to shake things up and make some kind of a real impact in his/her first few gangbuster months on the job? Or maybe just that a college administration can get some great idea that ends up being a bungling mess? That’s impressive confidence that colleges run like well-oiled machines at all times.</p>